Can you come up with better words? Especially Te and Si are problematic. I'm playing around with a new test and I need these kind of words. You can suggest more than one word for each type. And yes I know it is not necessarily a good idea to describe functions with one word but I want to explore this a bit Thanks.

yeah, i know. organized is not really a good example in terms of material things being organized (btw, nobody on this forum is less organized than i. don't challenge this and make me post pictures.) but rather of thoughts and information.

Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

Can you come up with better words? Especially Te and Si are problematic. I'm playing around with a new test and I need these kind of words. You can suggest more than one word for each type. And yes I know it is not necessarily a good idea to describe functions with one word but I want to explore this a bit Thanks.

"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

Good, a lot of good ideas Anyways let's narrow down a bit what kind of words I'm looking for...the word should

a) Be identifiable to a person who has this function as their leading function

b) Be identifiable to a person who has this function as one of their other strong functions especially 2nd and 8th or as their hidden agenda.

c) Not be very identifiable to a person who has this function as their PoLR

d) Be able to be attached to questions like "Do you consider yourself to be more X than Y". For example "Do you consider yourself to be more Energetic or Analytical?" (so e.g. "Possibilities" is not a good word even though it well describes a function)

e) Be strongly identifiable with one function only/mostly (this is hard but important). For example "Profitable" might describe any person who makes lots of money even if the person don't have strong Te. A rich INFp singer might consider herself to be "Profitable". Also words like "Factual" might be familiar to any type with strong Se and isn't very exclusive to Te.

f) Words should be equal in appreciation and somewhat attractive e.g. if you ask someone if they are "Sluggish" or "Efficient" then many people will pick "Efficient" even though they might not have strong Te. So the words should have a positive tone in them. E.g. If you ask someone whether they are "Insightful" or "Efficient" the question is more likely to reveal real differences in personality because both qualities are usually attracting to people.

e) Words should be in common use and quite concrete so pretty much anyone (even people not familiar with academic english) can instantly understand their meaning. e.g. "Passionate" is better than "Formative". I 'm not sure if I'm formative. Is it because I lack Ti or because the word is not part of my every day vocabulary? I do know that I usually lack in passion though. People should be able to absorb the words and provide an answer in seconds so I'm looking for really easy words.

Ok these are the rules Try to come up with more. I probably make a separate thread about the idea behind the test to see if people think it has potential or not.

And I think one word is too little. Maybe a nice little short sentence, but not one word.

In this thread I try to find words because that would be better. So don't start producing sentences please That can be done later if this is not working. But currently only single words (or perhaps two word combinations like "Problem solver").

"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle"A person acts most in 'type' be it personal or relational when stressed or under duress." -Lewis (2006)

XXX/xXXx i.e. unclassified and 'thinking outside the box' until i decide to 'retire' to absolute freedom.

True although it will likely create a problem as one-word/quick-fix/instant-result answers usually do.

Just think to yourself how society views introverts in generally as quintessentially 'shy'.

Something really complex simplified in a word that a) quick and dirtly describes the overall subjective complexity, b) becomes a annoying and embarrassing stereotype or 'condition' c) shy will always sounds worse then gregarious in a society that prefers extroversion.

In a calmer and saner society we can expect the tables to be turned around i.e. more thought and appropriate actions rather then more actions with less thought.

Given a choice most people currently would simply want to know, "are you an I-vert or E-vert and how can we capitalise on that? without considering the underlying functions which requires self-education in (Jung's Psychological Types) Socionics.

Since INTROSPECTION represents something which most 'extraverts' seldom understand since they don't 'live inside their heads' so to speak it takes years for extraverts to act more like introverts and vica versa although extraversion is easier to understand since we can see it subjectively.

"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle"A person acts most in 'type' be it personal or relational when stressed or under duress." -Lewis (2006)

XXX/xXXx i.e. unclassified and 'thinking outside the box' until i decide to 'retire' to absolute freedom.

True although it will likely create a problem as one-word/quick-fix/instant-result answers usually do.

This is possible. I'm trying to stay positive though and give it a chance
Long and "hard to interpret" explanations of functions create problems too though (problems in interpretation and when comparing the description to yourself).

Originally Posted by Lewis Stern

Just think to yourself how society views introverts in generally as quintessentially 'shy'.

Something really complex simplified in a word that a) quick and dirtly describes the overall subjective complexity, b) becomes a annoying and embarrassing stereotype or 'condition' c) shy will always sounds worse then gregarious in a society that prefers extroversion.

This is exacly what I'm trying to avoid. Because a) I'm trying to find words that could describe personality characteristics related to each of Jung's functions. That is why words like "introvert" and "extrovert" are not suitable words. They don't relate well to one specific function. Word "shy" is even worse because it doesn't relate to any specific function AND it is generally considered to be a negative word.

In the requirements above I mentioned the words should (as well as possible) relate to specific functions AND be positive qualities most people would want to have. For example Se="Energetic", Te="Effective", Fe="Passionate", Ni="Insightful" etc...

There are limits to how well a function can be described with one word (or one sentence) but I am encouraged about my initial results anyways.

Matti, I easily see a problem in your approach. An happy ISFp can indeed be more efficient than a depressed ENTj, for example. Generally, people with different punctual value on the happines-unhappiness axis are going to relate more or less to positive qualities, depending on whether their value tends to be nearer to one extreme, or the other. The happier, the more likely is somebody to relate to all the avaliable positive options.

Also, ENTjs ENTps and ESTps are going to relate to every good quality you mention, because we're a narcissistic bunch

Matti, I easily see a problem in your approach. An happy ISFp can indeed be more efficient than a depressed ENTj

Well then "Efficient" is a bad word How about if you make someone decide wheter they are a strongly visual person or a natural problem solver. Would that usually differentiate ISFps and ENTjs well?

And this test is not testing depression or similar disorders. Of course I could integrate questions that first finds out all personality disorders and mental conditions and then use them in the interpretation but now is not the right time for that . First version is for (relatively) healthy people

Originally Posted by FDG

for example. Generally, people with different punctual value on the happines-unhappiness axis are going to relate more or less to positive qualities, depending on whether their value tends to be nearer to one extreme, or the other. The happier, the more likely is somebody to relate to all the avaliable positive options.

But if they are forced to choose between two positive values would they not choose a positive value strongly related to their creative function more likely than a positive value strongly related to their PoLR for example?(this is my first and most important hypothesis).

Originally Posted by FDG

Also, ENTjs ENTps and ESTps are going to relate to every good quality you mention, because we're a narcissistic bunch

That's why the words are paired according to my hypothesises and the person is forced to choose which one they relate more. I might later add an option to choose neither or both but currently it is not supported because it complicates the interpretation of the results.

Actually I just tested my wife using a short 12 question test and she tested definitive ISFj. This is very interesting since it is her original type before she "changed" to ESFj. If she actually turns out to be ISFj then this is the first breakthrough of this approach! I will later make her type me and see what comes out. So far I have tested myself INTp other strong possibilities being ISTj/ISTp but I'm a bit blind to my test since I know exactly how each choice affects the results. I have to add that I used my initial wordings which are not necessarily accurate. Anyways when my wife tested Ne PoLR (ISFj, ISTj) jumped out pretty strongly as opposed to Ni PoLR (ESFj, ESTj). The hardest part was when deciding between Ti PoLR and Ne PoLR. Eventually she chose Ti as being stronger. She seems like an ISFj to me. If it turns out she is ESFj after all then that is a hard punch but not a KO yet It might just be the wording of Ni and Ne. It took about 1-2 minutes to complete the test and she didn't have too much trouble answering the questions like in most tests she has tried.

I think this is largely an exercise in futility. Insofar as you want to actually yield any kind of useful information, it's near impossible to view one function in isolation from the others in a given person's type. For instance, the Te of an ESTj is quite different from the Te of an ENTj.

I think this is largely an exercise in futility. Insofar as you want to actually yield any kind of useful information, it's near impossible to view one function in isolation from the others in a given person's type.

Thanks but I prefer constructive feedback in this thread Well you said "nearly impossible" which is kind of hopeful I understand there is a good possibility that this is not going to work as well as I would like. I will build a test on this idea and then let the test results decide how well it works.

Anyways I like the simplicity of this concept and my first experiences with testing are actually pretty encouraging although I have already found a potential problem domain that needs a closer look (related to the relationship between primary function and role function and the reliability of identifying which is which). All tests related to PoLR are working so far but separating look-a-like types with identical PoLRs is problematic. I have some new ideas on that though but we shall see...

Originally Posted by Dynamicism

For instance, the Te of an ESTj is quite different from the Te of an ENTj.

This example is actually not the best possible since I don't (so far) use leading functions in the comparisons because it would result in increase of questions and doesn't _seem_ to be necessary. I use creative function instead. So adapting your example...If I take ENTj as an example the main question would be is it possible to describe Si and Ni in a generic way (with one word or with short sentence) so that both ENTj and ENFj would (instantly) relate to the description of Ni more than they relate to the description of Si? (my Hypothesis 1. in the thread specifying my test principles claims that it is possible).

When you ask the same question for creative function, demonstrative function and hidden agenda the basic idea of the test is pretty much defined. In case of ENTj/ENFj can Ni, Se and Ne be defined in a generic way (with one word or with short sentence) so that both ENTj and ENFj would (instantly) relate to the descriptions more than they relate to the description of Si. My other hypothesises boldly claim they can. The only problem remaining would be separating ENTj and ENFj. I rely on leading function vs. role function test for this but it is not working 100% so I have to do something to this part of the test. I think I have to include dual seeking function to the equation somehow to separate these almost twins.

I think it is an interesting idea. I have actually used creative function as a key to the pattern between quadras. Creative function is for me an extraverted driving force - the force which changes the world around - it symbolises an external producing in model B.

The Polr is the internal producing. What is produced through thePolr (the weakest link, the 4th funciton - am I right?) is more important for the individual himself. We do have obligations to the world and to themselves.

Association with word reminds me associative socionics: word is a shape/structure/form but also meaning, and colour and sound - it is special. Sometime soon we shall start associate people and their creation, music, quadras, types, cultures with funciotns more freely. But it is a good idea to start with more simple constructs.

I think this is largely an exercise in futility. Insofar as you want to actually yield any kind of useful information, it's near impossible to view one function in isolation from the others in a given person's type. For instance, the Te of an ESTj is quite different from the Te of an ENTj.

I think this post of yours was a large exercise in futility, and for many reasons. I think you also demonstrate understanding without balance. Yes, people are whole, and driven by a (possibly complex) network of "things." Sure. Fine. Ok. I agree. Acceptable. Now, assume everyone realizes that. MOVE BEYOND THAT OBSERVATION AND DIG DEEPER. I'll step out to the realm of the impersonal objects to talk about a car. A car is a whole, and is kept moving by a network of "things." There is a mechanic trying to learn more about the car. He pokes and prods and investigates, and tries to analyze the small pieces of the car, so he can better understand the GLUE (the unifying purpose, the driving force, the goal) that would tie them all together into a functional unit. His, let's say, mentor tells him his investigations are largely futile. How stupid is that mentor? Wait.. in the case of a car you are absolutely certain it functions as a result of the elegant networking of very distinct parts. There is truth in the words of the mentor, but his own belief of enlightenment (oh, I've been working on cars for years, and I know for a fact that breaking it down into pieces, or trying to, is absolutely useless) prevents him from understanding what is going on.

My theory is that the functions are wholly seperate, and that they can be looked at independent of everything else. Let's say Te is factual, Ni is penetrating, Fe is accomodating, and Si is self-aware. You'd have something like this, for the almighty ENTj:

Self-awareness is important, but not as much as being accomodating to the general mood/expectations. Perceptive intuitions/hunches are important, but they are only a means through which one can get to the FACTS. Being self-preserving and accomodating is good, but must not interfere with perceptive intuitions guiding towards the establishment of the facts, which matter most, because they can be readily used.

The better you define the pieces, the more easily, and sensibly they can, when the time comes, be pieced together into a relevant whole.

That was interesting description of ENTJ. I find it interesting when people create their descriptions. IT IS WHERE CREATIVITY COMES FROM.
You take something already known and put it through your unic perception and give it a special sound and colour like an artist. The description does not need to be photographic. Photography is art too but not quite the same as playing the colours -interaction between shape and meaning.

Again it may not appeal to some but surely will appeal to others who is on the same level of perception and understanding. Like Ann mentioned about my model: she understands inhibition or supression between functions but not control/submission between blocks. It depends to what we refer: abstract structure or feellings.

I wonder if you can describe other types like you did with ENTJ - open your topic and let others to have a taste of it.

First version of my test is ready. I updated it quite bit to include all 8 functions in one way or another and stress the importance of PoLR and Dual Seeking function in finding and validating the result. Test is not yet ready to go online and it has to be validated and perhaps improved before that.

At this point I'm going to try to validate it with a selected group of people so if you don't receive a PM then you are not selected If the test sucks I will get back to drawing board.

You can keep on thinking up new words. I may find out that the current one's I use are not working as supposed and I have to change them. I moved from using single words to several words and occasionally short sentences.